Re: Genesis and Predictions

Adam Crowl (
Fri, 13 Nov 1998 03:36:33 PST

>Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 09:07:01 -0500 (EST)
>From: Moorad Alexanian <alexanian@UNCWIL.EDU>
>Subject: Re: Genesis and Predictions
>To: Adam Crowl <>
In reply to my fumings as "qraal" Moorad wrote...
>I believe that the day we know all about the physical universe, then we
>realize that the Genesis account is consistent with our knowledge of
>everything came into being. However, the Genesis account is not
>to lead to that knowledge.

I agree to a certain extent, but such knowledge lies a long way off. A
real question I have with most "reconstructions" of Genesis 1/2 is the
persistent failure to recognise the cosmology that the writers are
coming from. Take God's first act - the creation of light and the
separation of day from night. To us this makes no sense, that there can
be a day without the Sun, but imagine the naive viewpoint of c. 1500 BC.
To them there is no obvious link between Light and the Sun because they
see a bright blue sky through which the Sun moves, and contrariwise the
night and the Moon. To this view the bright blue sky is the habitat of
the Sun just as much as the water is the home of fishes - a landscape
for an inhabitant. In this world view the Sun, Moon and Stars are still
living creatures, even if they are not gods - just as the great
sea-beasts rule the sea, the "great lights" rule their respective skies.

Does this translate at all into modern materialist cosmology? No. I very
much doubt that stars are living beings and likewise the Sun. We know
the Moon is just cooling mantle slag blown off the Earth, and not the
ruler of the Night. C.S.Lewis had speculated on angelic counterparts to
the celestial hosts, but whether he wa serious or not is irrelevant -
Newton killed the celestials when "soul" was no longer necessary to
"push" the heavenlies around the sky.

Or so it seems. Perhaps Genesis is code, but the noise level is pretty


Get Your Private, Free Email at